IT SEEMS the Poolbeg incinerator debacle continues
apace with even the Greens apparently resigned to its inevitability.

I can only surmise that the reason this white
elephant is still being pursued is because policymakers think municipal
‘waste’ is a problem that is inherently costly to deal
with.

In this case, attitudes need to change and, instead
of thinking purely in terms of waste disposal, we should evaluate
incineration against alternative technologies as a source of revenue.

Under a best-case scenario, the €266 million
facility would generate 29 megawatts of electricity — a capital
cost of €9,200 per kilowatt of installed capacity. This is around
20 times the cost of a gas-fired power station and five times that
of a nuclear facility.

Yet while these stations pay for fuel, incineration
is so inefficient that the facility will need a gate-fee charge of
€88 per tonne.

This is €30 per tonne more than existing
landfill fees and will surely lead to increased bin charges. Final
economics may be worse if the alleged costs are compared with other
schemes — a similar proposal for Liverpool will cost £300m-£400m
to build, with projected costs over 20 years of between £1.75
billion and £2 billion.

In contrast, there are several technologies that
will profitably provide fuels and chemicals from wastes.

For example, one process, at a capital cost of
under €60m, could give at least €100m litres of ethanol
from the ‘waste’ planned for Poolbeg. Other processes
could offer higher yields at greater capital costs, although still
substantially less than those for the proposed incinerator. These
volumes could satisfy the EU directive for the biofuel content of
petrol by 2010. Also, operational costs would be less than 33 cent
per litre (petrol equivalent) — very competitive since petrol
costs 50 cent per litre, pre-tax.

Hence, current gate fees could be abolished once capital costs arereclaimed,
and the savings passed on to households. Importantly, such facilities
could be located at more convenient sites than Poolbeg, reducing traffic
problems.

Environment Minister John Gormley, whose web
page still contains anti-incinerator articles, is wrong when he says
it is too late to stop Poolbeg. He could insist that future gate fees
at any waste facility are no greater than existing landfill charges.
In such a scenario, incineration could not go forward, but bio-refineries
would prosper. The adjudication process for waste treatment facilities
has not considered ethanol production.

Our group at the University of Limerick proposes
an open debate with the Dublin engineers on incineration and alternative
technologies.

We believe this is the best way to address the
interests of taxpayers and that such a debate would alert people that
their ‘waste’ has significant environmental and commercial
value.

Daniel J Hayes
IRCSET Research Student
Chemical and
Environmental Sciences
University of Limerick